HOLY MITT
Bloggers Bash Romney’s Mormonism
By Tracy Medley, 12-22-06
 | |
|
Merry Christmas, Mr. Romney. You may not be Republican-candidate du jour, John McCain, but bloggers and columnists have gone bat-mitt crazy writing about you on the “internets”. Okay, maybe they aren’t writing about you exactly, but they are writing about your religion ad nauseam. “Can a Mormon be president?” “Will Americans vote for a Mormon?” “Is Mitt Romney crazy for Mo-Mo Puffs?” Luckily for Mitt no one has brought up his “funny Mormon underwear.” Oh wait.
The question of America’s readiness to elect a Mormon president has become as poignant as wondering if we’re ready to vote for an alien. I hate to break it to you bloggers, but Mormons have been walking among us for years; eating our food, breathing our air and buying our soda-pop…caffeine free, of course.
While some have thoughtfully written about Romney, most have taken his candidacy as open season to say whatever hateful notion they’ve ever had about America’s fastest growing religion. Of course they’re quick to remind everyone that they aren’t expressing religious bigotry because, well, duh…Mormons are crazy. We can all agree on that, right?....right?
As a non-believer in Mormon-country, even I'm getting a little tired of the amateurish rhetoric.
Jacob Weisberg of Slate.com had a lot to say in a recent blog. “I wouldn't vote for someone who truly believed in the founding whoppers of Mormonism. The LDS church holds that Joseph Smith, directed by the angel Moroni, unearthed a book of golden plates buried in a hillside in Western New York in 1827. The plates were inscribed in "reformed" Egyptian hieroglyphics—a nonexistent version of the ancient language that had yet to be decoded,” he wrote. “Smith was able to dictate his "translation" of the Book of Mormon first by looking through diamond-encrusted decoder glasses and then by burying his face in a hat with a brown rock at the bottom of it. He was an obvious con man. Romney has every right to believe in con men, but I want to know if he does, and if so, I don't want him running the country.”
Who can forget conservative blogger, Andrew Sullivan’s missive bashing Romney’s Mormonism? Sullivan took aim at Mormon’s “funny underwear.” “At least Romney will never have to answer the boxers or briefs question,” Sullivan quipped above a decidedly horrid photo depicting Latter Day Saint garments.
While there are intelligent discussions to be had concerning Romney’s religion; these blogs haven’t come close. Underwear? Come on guys. It’s not too big of stretch to say that if these comments had been made about a Jewish or Muslim candidate; they would be considered offensive, bigoted and all-around lame. There’s no difference here just because we’re talking about homegrown Mormonism and there shouldn't be a difference just because we’re talking about a white-bread conservative. Intolerance is intolerance any way you look at it.
…And to all a good night.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
http://www.slate.com/id/2155902/
How did Jacob get his Job at slate? Did someone ask him what religion he was, or did someone ask what experience he had? Perhaps someone asked to see his Resume.
Jacob Weisberg said, “Such views are disqualifying because they're dogmatic, irrational, and absurd. By holding them, someone indicates a basic failure to think for himself or see the world as it is.”
Jacob can pre-judge religious people based solely on their religious beliefs? He does not need a Resume. He does not want to look at their IQ, ACT scores, or accomplishments to judge them. All he needs to know is what religion we belong to in order to classify us as “dogmatic, irrational, and absurd”. Jacob actually said, “by holding them (these beliefs), someone indicates a basic failure to think for himself or see the world as it is.”
Is that how Jacob Weisberg got a job at slate? They asked him for a Resume, and he said, “don’t worry, I’m an atheist”. And the head-honcho at Slate, said, “Good, I don’t have enough time to look at people’s qualifications. I hate Résumé’s with all those stupid things like, ‘graduated from Harvard Business and Law School Cum Laude. Valedictorian. These don’t really mean anything. All I need to do is hear a profession of faith (testimony), or lack thereof, depending on what is fashionable in this day and time. By proclaiming your religious beliefs or lack there of you have told me everything I need to know about you. Welcome to Slate.'”
No, I assume that Jacob had to show some qualifications maybe even a Resume. It would have been against federal law for his boss to ask him what religion he was, wouldn’t it? Jacob thinks that he should be able to disqualify individuals because of their religious beliefs when they run for president. I wonder if that is how he runs things at slate. Has Jacob ever hired someone who was not an atheist, or is that a pre-requisite at slate? You know, we don’t know what is going on over their at slate, but the rest of the world, Jacob, does not just look at a religious litmus test. There is at least some talk of qualifications. If that is all you need in order to be disqualified to be president, if it is that obvious that Mormons do not deserve any respect, no matter how hard they work or what they accomplish, why should they be allowed into college? All Mormons and the other religions that Jacob should be mentioned should be outlawed from college for the reasons that Jacob outlines. He says; “Such views are disqualifying because they're dogmatic, irrational, and absurd. By holding them, someone indicates a basic failure to think for himself or see the world as it is.” Sorry Mitt, we are going to have to take away your degrees from Harvard Law and Business school. You are an irrational, dogmatic, and absurd Mormon. You do not deserve them.
Jacob says, “By the same token, I wouldn't vote for someone who truly believed in the founding whoppers of Mormonism.” Is that so Jacob? If you owned a business would you hire a Mormon? They have obviously proven to you that they are stupid. Do you want stupid people working for you? Do you feel comfortable admitting to the world that you are a bigot?
Jacob says that Mitt Romney is an “Elder” in the church. If Jacob would have spent 30 seconds talking to someone from the church, he would have realized that Romney is not an Elder.
I think it is great that Jacob wants America to be more like Northern Ireland and Iran were people are judged based on which religion they belong to.
I’m glad that Jacob can take a short cut to intellectualism. He doesn’t have to debate Mitt Romney, he doesn’t have to read the Old Testament, New Testament, or Book of Mormon. He doesn’t have to do better in school, on the ACT’s, SAT’s or in life than Mitt Romney in order to be smarter than he is. All he has to do is reject Mormonism, and therefore he is smarter than Mitt Romney, and deserves more than Romney does, to be president. Forget that Romney balanced the budget without raising taxes; forget that he came up with a new way corralling people away from the emergency rooms and into insurance plans. None of that Matters. Jacob Weisberg is more qualified to be president, in his view, because he is not a Mormon.
Then Jacob says about the stupidest thing I have ever heard. It is his only argument that he brings to the table besides that Mormons are too stupid to be president. The rest of his article is him parading around in his naked bigotry. But here is the only argument that he bring to the table and it makes me wonder how he got a job working anywhere, even at slate magazine.
He says, “Perhaps Christianity and Judaism are merely more venerable and poetic versions of the same [transparent fraud]. But a few eons makes a big difference. The world's greater religions have had time to splinter, moderate, and turn their myths into metaphor.” So according to Jacob every other time there was a religious movement were people left one church and joined another, it was healthy. It was good, because it was a reformation. But when my ancestor, George Laub, who was a Baptist preacher left his church to become a Mormon it was not part of this refining process? He does not think that Mormonism had anything to draw my grandparents to it? It was not a healthy splintering or moderation? Why are all the other new religions good, but Mormonism was bad? Jacob does not tell us. He wants us to judge mitt Romney, without looking at any of the details of his life, and he wants us to agree with him (that religious bigotry towards Mormons is good) without giving us any reason to agree with him. No substance. No reasons to come to his conclusion. No logic. No independent way of judging Mitt. No use of a Resume. No looking at his skills or experience. And Jacob gives us no reason to agree with him, except other religions have been around longer, and for some reason their leaders that started new churches were good, and our leaders were not. We are just supposed to jump to his side without any substance, without any reason besides his self righteous mockery.
I would like to see Jacob Weisberg’s Resume, and I can get Mitt Romney’s resume, and we can see who America thinks is smarter.
~~~Mike
This is kind of a rough draft. I got my degree in electrical engineering, and I don't write very well. Could someone who can use words better than me take a stab at this?
Addendum
This from Nancy
He also thinks President Bush relies too heavily on his faith, that he’s a religious nut as well...
Good company I guess...
This from Peter
It seems likely that Mr. Weisberg has spent more time researching Mormonism by watching South Park than reading Fawn Brodie's biography, or anything actually published by the LDS Church. His errors in reasoning would be laughable if he were some anonymous blogger like yours truly.
I suspect this type of argument is what we can expect from those on the left who oppose Romney. Notice how he chides Mitt for being a man of "flexible principles" then extols this as an admirable quality. The whole "He's not a pure conservative" argument just doesn't work coming from the left so they can only resort to attacking people of all faith, but those ignorant Mormons in particular because they're newer and all. I guess being in possession of "religious heritage" diminishes the role of faith so the longer your religion has been around, the easier it becomes to follow your parents footsteps because that's what is expected. People with "religious heritage" can't be accused of being true believers because faith plays a lesser role than it does if your brand of faith is a newer variety. In other words, Mr. Weisberg won't hold you accountable for the duping of your ancestors as long as it happened more than say 500 years ago.
I'm also quite sure that many of the recent attacks on Romney come from people who harbor similar opinions as Mr. Weisberg, but they can't openly express this because of the obvious hypocrisy they open themselves up to. So instead of a direct religious attack, they opt for any other real or perceived weakness. Thus the firestorm over quotes taken out of context and accusations of moral expediency. I'm kind of tired of it, but I expect they're going to come with all they've got. Thanks for the post Mike. It's comforting that just about wherever I go in the blogosphere, I find well articulated responses to the endless attacks. In most cases, the replies to the attacks are much better than the accusers deserve and I think in the end, that's a big reason Mitt is going to come out on top. Here's hoping anyway.
David French, has a great article here
http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/front_page/jacob_weisbergs_tiresome_conde.php
about "Jacob Weisberg's Tiresome Condescension"
David says, "Hold on there, chief. Is it really true that mainstream Christianity and Judaism are acceptable only because we've turned "their myths into metaphor?"
"On their face, these claims are pretty fantastic (and Mormons believe them too, by the way). And this illustrates a point we have long made here at EFM: if we evangelicals allow reasoning like this to derail the candidacy of a brilliant, faithful, man of integrity like Governor Romney, is there any assurance -- any assurance at all -- that the very same reasoning won't be turned on us?"
This reminds me of a great line from "A Man For All Seasons":
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
It also reminds me of this:
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.
by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945
Jews, Catholics, and Protestants everywhere that want to be judged as individuals not by religious bigotry need to stand up to religious bigots like Jacob Weisberg. Closet religious bigotry is one thing, but Jacob Weisberg is proud of the fact that he is willing to judge people by their religion, as apposed to on an individual basis. If you don’t stand up for Mitt right to be judged on his individual accomplishments and characteristics, you will be judged that much more, because of what group you belong to.
Ho Ho Ho...
bella
Just sayin'
Oh . . . Bella--I doubt you've really lived in Utah and have had much contact with Mormons. If you do/did then I think you could at least SPELL "Mormon" correctly. Or, maybe you really did live there, but didn't seek to learn anything about what makes Utah Mormon's tick (at least spelling the name correctly is a start)--sometime's it's a two way street (or maybe you really do have bad breath ;).
Thank you Jason for the article cause I feel the same. good day!
Everyone has their extremists. For the US it's the evangelicals (Bush) for Middle East it's al Queda (bin Laden). Still don't think it's a holy war?
Religion: The tie that divides.
Some examples. Until recently, it was common to have high school graduations in the Mormon Church in small towns. A mother of a friend of mine (who was graduating) respectully and gently protested against this. The response? Otracizing from the community, including the boycotting of her small business which went bankrupt. Another example. In Utah, Mormons control 99% of the Boy Scout organizations. One has to search high and low and then travel extensively just to find non-Mormon controlled Boy Scout troops.
The Mormons I know and have lived with base these beliefs and behaviors on the fact that they believe "the Mormon Church is the ONLY true church in the world", a statement most of them make at the end of their 'testimonials' in front of their chuch. They believe that the President of the Mormon Church is a prophet and therefore has a direct dialogue with God (more superiority). Finally, they believe that by reaching the Celestial level of heaven they in turn become gods and goddesses (the ultimate superiority).
Therefore, this is not about intolerance towards Mormons. This about electing someone for beliefs that are inherently intolerant and dangerously superior. After all, if one has a direct dialogue with God, and if one is going to be a God then one can justify any actions.
Your reasoning leaves something to be desired, but your hysteria and bigotry comes through.
While it's true that those of the Mormon faith dominate the political/ social scene in Utah...and it's also true that for every "non-member" there's a story of some sort of bigotry or intolerance in their past...the most common of these being that Mormon kids were forbidden from playing with them when they were younger. Sadly, what Mormons and Non-Mormons are missing in Utah specifically is the commonality they share in the vacuum of their intolerance for each other.
Because outside of Utah; the roles are quite reversed. In my own personal experience as a Mormon kid (I've since left the church) in South Florida, I can tell you that other kid's parents forbid them from playing with me because I WAS Mormon. Going to Private Christian Schools, I experienced outright hatred toward my parent's religion...but, they claimed they weren't being intolerant because I belonged to a cult.
Maybe this is why I can be a non-believer in Utah and feel compassion for both sides.
I have no problem if people don't want to vote for Mitt Romney because of his record, his crappy hair cut or his religion. As Americans we have the right to factor in anything we wish when it comes to voting; all I'm saying is don't fool yourself or try to convince people that you aren't being prejudiced in some way.
http://blog.electromneyin2008.com/
I respect your comments and perspective. This is an important topic. But, my worry is that we cannot have reasoned and rational debate on Mitt's religion without political correctness once again rearing its ugly head and obscuring the reality of actions and behavior.
First, it is not in anyway bigoted or prejudicial to outline some of the core beliefs of the Mormon Church and question how these core beliefs would influence a President, especially when these core beliefs are inherently intolerant and frankly fanatical. As a voter, I would do the same with a Baptist or a Muslim.
For example, the President of the Mormon Church has a direct dialogue with God. Unquestionably, this gives the Church ultimate authority and justification and frankly is highly anti-democratic. In 2007, most reasonable people around the world feel this is fairly fanatical. Does Mitt believe in this ultimate authority?
Another example, the Book of Mormon is based on a supposed civilization of Caucasians (originally descended from one of the 10 lost tribes of Israel according to Smith) in South America -- for which there is absolutely zero archeological findings or evidence (despite BYU's best efforts). I grant that many religions have their outlandish stories, but as Weisberg points out, these have attenuated (thankfully) to myth and metaphor. Joseph Smith made this up only 150 years ago and yet this is still considered fact by Mormons including, I would assume, Romney.
Lastly, as Mill pointed out, the real test of a government and its people is how they treat the minority. Let's look at the actions and behavior of the Mormon Church when they are in the majority. It's a remarkable record of intolerance and bigotry towards (a) other races, and (b) non-Mormons. In actions, laws, and behvavior, the Mormon Church, its leaders, and its followers who hold political office in Utah have been consistently intolerant and prejudicial. Does Mitt condone this record?
These are just three examples of a 'religion' (of Mitt's) that tries to cast itself as 'mainstream', 'rational', and 'tolerant' and yet at its core is actually quite fanatical, and in its actions and behaviors is quite intolerant.
I do not in any way condone intolerance towards anyone practicing Mormonism. People should be able to believe what they want in this day and age. But any voter in '08 presidential election needs to understand this religion in its reality and not have it sugar-coated under the (blaring) banner of political correctness.
http://reason4romney.blogspot.com/2006/12/jacob-weisberg-of-slate.html
This is comically unlike what most Mormons actually believe, though it's true they believe the prophet and any other worthy person can receive revelation. Even you, Jim. A Mormon would be most unlikely to believe that the president of the church would receive revelation about what the president of the nation should do, any more than you would receive revelation about what I should do. The core principle is freedom, which is fundamental to the faith.
Your "interpretation" smacks of ignorance, if you like that word better than bigotry. But you sound quite ready to lecture Mormons on what they believe and what's wrong with what they believe and to present yourself as an authority on the faith.
http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=3651
Or go read some Mormons to get a more robust sense of reality.
http://thumbsnap.com/v/EykY6IxJ.jpg
However, where do you live? Are you with a liberal version of the Mormon Church? I live in Utah, the heart and soul of the Church, its history, and its (frequently intolerant) power across all walks of life. Unfortunately, with the exception of one issue, you completely avoid the other core beliefs I raise as fanatical, indeed extremist, not to mention the Mormon Church's actions and behaviors as the domineering power here in Utah.
First, I don't know what Mormons you know, but everyone of my many Mormon friends across city and country believe the President of the Church has a direct dialogue with God. And since the Mormon Church "is the only true church" a statement said by everyone at their testimonials in their wards, this means that the only 'guy' (since it's all guys in the top echelon) in the world who can talk to God is the Mormon Prez. That is great club...can I join?
Further, this hotline to God directly led to the lifting of the racist theology preventing blacks from entering the priesthood. The year was **1974.** The President at the time (Kimball if I recall correctly) talked to God. God said he was reversing himself and that blacks could now enter the priesthood.
Of course, in this case (of many) the Mormon Church finally realized that it was completely politicially unacceptable in the US to openly discriminate against blacks if they wanted to appear as mainstream (and of course attempt to convert more Gentiles). Odd, how the God of the True Church changed his mind on this issue after mandating it for ~150 years.
To other readers....do you find this tenant (hotline to the Big Man) of the Mormon Church a bit fanatical, perhaps a bit dogmatic, and prejudicial? Would it worry you -- as it should with an Islamic fanatic -- that a person running for Presidency believes these core beliefs?
MLU, please address the other issues I raised as well -- the Causian Civilization in South America, the Celestial form of heaven where people become Gods. Do you believe these? All my Mormon friends do with no exceptions. Are you saying these are not fanactical not to mention fantastical? BTW, most Mormons also believe the earth is 6000 years old.
Many religions have myths and metaphors. The more sane ones distinguish between dogmatism and fantasticism and symbology, metaphor and myth. I want to know my next President is not a fanatic (even privately) and that he/she is not an extremist. Again, I stress that I would want to know this, be the candidate Baptist or Muslim or Buddhist or ....
If Mitt is a 'true' practicing Mormon, then one can only conclude -- unless he explicitly states otherwise -- that he believes and practices in the core foundations and beliefs of the Mormon Church (which include the above). After all, if he weren't and he were to dissent, he would be excommunicated since the Mormon Church is **inherently** intolerant to any dissent within its confines.
I completely respect anyone to believe in anything. But if someone is running to lead my country, anyone has the right to question his/her beliefs. This is not intolerance. It's healthy questioning and it's asking a Presidential candidate to explicitly state what he believes. This is democracy in its best form.
So in summary to Mr. Romney, what core foundations of the Mormon Church do you believe and practice? Which ones do you not subscribe to?
As Governor of Massachusetts, Romney has supported policies that seem incongruent with Mormon teachings but I haven't heard any talk of excommunication. The church, with rare exceptions--MX missiles, ERA, gay marriage--avoids direct involvement with politics. Harry Reid also seems to be left alone.
If an area that has a predominantly Mormon population enacts laws that suit Mormons, that's quite a bit different than the church dictating to the state. In fact, it's sort of like democracy--as long as they (1) don't violate the Constitution (2) derive from popular sovereignty, and (3) apply to everyone equally.
I spent tonight at a Kootenai Jump Dance, where my granddaughter was given her name. It was pleasant to be among brothers and sisters with an understanding of the sacred. As for people who don't have such understanding, their opinion on religious matters is worthless.
Will Mitt Romney be influenced by his faith. Of course he will. Just as a President Kennedy was influenced by his. Will it control Gov. Romney? No. Mitt Romney has standards and morals that have been developed through his faith in Jesus Christ and in the Restoration of the Gospel. However, not only does the Church not get involved in politics except in the extremely rare occasion, but the leaders of the LDS Church do not have time to get involved. We are a quickly growing people, our leaders are constantly traveling and meeting with the members all over the world. There are more Mormons outside the US than inside. There are plenty of problems within the membership of the church, mostly dealing with the pride that brings about the immense haughtiness and rude behavior that many of you have described in Utah & Idaho, and President Hinckley and his associates have more than enough to deal with right there. I don't think a 95 year old man who is fighting cancer along with 14 other men who are aging and quite busy want anymore responsibility, to tell you the truth.
I don't live in Utah. I wouldn't ever live there. The unbelievable behavior of SOME members of the church there is ridiculous. I hate visiting. But like all Muslims are not terrorists, all Mormons are not bigotted, hateful and excluding. I live in Southern Georgia. We moved here when my husband served in the US military and we stayed because we love the gentle nature of the people and the layed back culture. There has been a farely regular amount of persecution since we moved here due to our religion. We don't advertise our faith on our sleeves, but when asked we state our membership with the love we feel for it and than we drop it. We have been excluded, we have be spit on, our children were not welcomed into a play group, and we have had our home vandalized. We moved and were attending church when the back window of 5 cars in the parking lot were broken and dog feces was thrown in. Prejudice and bigotry is everywhere. It is not just in the states dominated by members of the LDS Church. No matter where you go, local and/or Federal governing will be dominated by one group or another. Catholic, Baptist, Mormon, Protestant. It's the way it is. Those who do behave that way and are members of our Church are not behaving in the way that we have been taught and I am ashamed of them.
Does Mitt Romney have a chance? I don't know. I kinda doubt it. I don't know who I will vote for. I grew up in Arizona and had some personal dealing with Senator McCain. I don't like some of his views, but I have seen him actually work for his constituency. I am just beginning to do some hardcord research into the standing of each of the candidates.
I apologize, as a member of the LDS Church for the obviously poor behavior of some of the members of my faith. Shame on them in so many ways. And if all you have on a guy is that his religion doesn't work with yours and he wears underwear that you think are silly and THAT is why you aren't voting for him - maybe you need to re-evaluate you criteria. The choices are slim anyway.
My husband served his mission in the Pocatello Idaho Mission. His greatest struggle in a lot of areas were the members themselves. Their pride was often their downfall. It caused my husband to come up with the saying that there are two types of members of our church: Saints and Mormons. Mormons are the stereotypical people from Utah. High and mighty, over zealous and rude people who think their poop doesn't stink and that everyone else's does. Saints are those who do their darndest to follow the tenants of our faith, recognize their fallibility and love everyone - the way the Savior teaches us to. In my life I have met far more Saints than Mormons, but the Mormons get the attention and are generally the ones causing the uproar in areas.
Not fully knowing Gov Romney's stance and history, I would like to profer that perhaps he would be a good choice because of his religion. Latter-day Saints are a peace loving people, huge on education, respecting the earth and on doing good to all mankind. He, as I believe was previously stated, has set up a healthcare system where all people get insurance in Massachusetts and I don't think he's veyr radical in his governing style.
I think it is important if America is going to get out of the massive funk of immoral and less than exemplary Presidents we've had for the 20 years that we get our head out of our butts and start looking at what is IMPORTANT. I remember so many "soccer mom's" voting for Clinton because he was handsome. That's outrageous! I was too young to remember much of Bush Sr. presidential race and while I voted for GWB and my husband was serving in the military when I did and servicemen have different views on Iraq than do the public, for the most part - I would have preferred a better choice. Our choices this election may be a black man, a white woman, or a Mormon. Either way this is going to be a groundbreaking exciting election. If we focus on those 3 traits however are we any better than those who have been oppressing and limiting rights for years? It shouldn't be about race, gender or religion - it should be about values, political stances and who can do the best job for our country.
We need a good President now. We need someone to give us some hope because we are quickly running out. I don't care who it is as long as they are moral, intelligent and honest.
Rachel